Politics and Culture

June 29, 2016

Time for a rethink

John Cassidy, in the New Yorker, is another who doubts that Brexit is going to happen any time soon:

If Cameron had invoked Article 50 on Friday morning, Britain would now be on its way out: the exit process is irreversible. But thanks to the Prime Minister’s clever maneuver—which is surely what it was—the country has some time to reflect on the consequences of Brexit, which are already turning out to be far more serious than many of the people who voted Leave realized. In addition to plunging the country’s political system into chaos, the referendum result has prompted a big fall in the stock market and the value of the pound sterling, and it has raised questions about Britain’s creditworthiness. On Monday night, news came out that Standard & Poor’s had stripped Britain of its triple-A credit rating, another blow to investors. Ordinary people may be more concerned that, with the school holidays coming up, the cost of taking a European vacation, which many Brits of all social classes do every year, has jumped by about twelve per cent.

So far, then, the Leave vote has made people poorer, confirming some of the warnings that the British Treasury and other supporters of the Remain side had issued. Going through with Brexit would also have more lasting implications for British businesses, particularly those in the country’s enormous financial sector. Talk of big European and American banks quitting the City of London, which by many measures is the world’s largest financial hub, are exaggerated. But there is no doubt that some jobs would be relocated to places like Dublin, Frankfurt, and Paris. “The financial center won’t die, but it will get weaker,” John Cryan, the chief executive of Deutsche Bank, which employs about eleven thousand people in London, said on Monday.

Some respected economists are now predicting an economy-wide recession, and then there is the future of the British Union, which is much more ancient than the European Union. As the pro-Brexit writer Fraser Nelson pointed out atThe Spectator on Monday, it is an exaggeration to say that a British departure from the E.U. would inevitably lead Scotland to declare independence from the U.K.—data from opinion polls doesn’t point in only one direction. It can’t be denied, though, that Brexit would create the biggest crisis in the relationship between England and Scotland since the 1707 Acts of Union, and it would also raise serious questions about the future of Northern Ireland, which receives a lot of funding from Brussels, and which, like Scotland, voted to Remain.

If Leave supporters could have foreseen the result of their votes, how many would have changed sides? Vox-pop interviews conducted in the course of the weekend indicated that at least some of them were having second thoughts. And one prominent Brexit campaigner has wavered, as well. “When I put my cross against leave I felt a surge as though for the first time in my life my vote did count. I had power,” Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, Britain’s biggest-selling newspaper, wrote on Monday. “Four days later, I don’t feel quite the same. I have buyer’s remorse. A sense of be careful what you wish for. To be truthful I am fearful of what lies ahead.”

As reality sets in, E.U. leaders may well be content to let the Brits stew in their own juices for a while. Initial talk of forcing the U.K. to begin the process of leaving straight away has been replaced by calls for patience. Monday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal quoted Angela Merkel’s chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, as saying, “Politicians in London should have the possibility to think again about the fallout from an exit.” To leave now, he added, “would be a deep cut with far-reaching consequences.” A majority of the politicians at Westminster probably agree with Altmaier’s analysis. But what, if anything, can they do to reverse the march toward Brexit?

One possibility being floated by some pro-E.U. campaigners is a vote in the House of Commons against invoking Article 50. During the weekend, a number of constitutional experts pointed out that, under the British system, sovereignty rests in Parliament, and so the Leave vote was purely advisory. “MPs are entitled to vote against it, and are bound to vote against it, if they think it’s in Britain’s best interest,” Geoffrey Robertson, a prominent British barrister, told the Independent. “It’s not over yet.”

To be sure, it’s not. But Parliament simply overriding the result of the referendum may not be a realistic option. More than seventeen million people voted Leave. If their preferences were to be ignored, civil unrest could well result. As Cameron said in announcing his intention to resign, “The British people have voted to leave the European Union, and their will must be respected.”

A more likely outcome is a general election, a second referendum, or both....

All indications are that Cameron’s resignation caught Johnson unprepared. Should he move into 10 Downing Street, he would face dissident backbenchers in his own party, and cries for an early election would be hard to resist. If one were called, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, which by then may well have a new and more credible leader to replace Jeremy Corbyn, would probably campaign on a platform that promised another referendum. The opposition parties would get a good deal of support in this from the U.K. business community, and from the dissident Tories.

At this stage, it is impossible to say how all of this will play out: there are too many variables. When I started working on this post, my guess was that the odds of Brexit ultimately happening were about fifty-fifty, and possibly less. In the course of writing, I spoke to a couple of pro-E.U. people in London whose opinions I respect, and both of them said that I was being too optimistic. Passions have been inflamed, they pointed out, and many of the players have staked out positions that limit their flexibility.

Maybe I’ve fallen victim to wishful thinking; I hope not. The Britain I grew up in took pride in its common sense and pragmatism. Affinities for ideology and political extremism were regarded as suspect, European qualities. For the sake of Britain, and also of Europe, I hope that my countrymen and countrywomen rediscover their modest virtues before it’s too late. Watching from afar, it’s clear that a mistake has been made, and that it’s time for a rethink.

I still believe that a move to invoke Article 50 could be thrown out by the House of Commons, on the grounds that the referendum was purely advisory, and sovereignty still resides with parliament. I'm sure that's what a lot of MPs are thinking. But, yes, that's taking a big risk, and UKIP would undoubtedly capitalise on what they'd characterise as a betrayal of the people, and a betrayal of democracy - not that referendums form a part of British democracy anyway. So yes, a general election could, as it were, provide a constitutional cover for parliament to realign and allow itself to vote Remain with a degree of legitimacy.

Comments

Well, the 1975 referendum - the first ever - was viewed as a legitimate part of British democracy, as were the various Scottish devolution referendums, the Irish Peace Agreement one etc etc etc so I'm not sure where people suddenly get the idea that they are an alien imposition. But experience tells us that it's only the first step that is difficult. Once you are on the primrose path to dictatorship you might as well keep right on to the end of the road.

It's hard to imagine anything more in keeping with pure democracy--unmediated by party apparati, elections for representatives, etc., than a referendum.

You're telling an awful lot of people to go stuff it, and that what they think is absolutely irrelevant and shall not henceforth be considered in the governing of their own country. That strategy will work out fabulously, I'm sure. Don't worry, more than half of your nation's voters will certainly have forgotten what you've done by next week.

And having just done a quick wiki search, I can tell you that the 17 million people who just voted for Out is about 3 million more votes than any political party have ever won in any British general election

Bit simplistic Gene - the argument is that, unlike a National Election where Parliament is voted on every 5 years (giving an electorate the chance to "keep the bastards honest")- a Referendum is a one time only option of where the consequences of being sold a false prospectus have the potential for enormous damage.

If, in the months before Article 50 is invoked, it is proved that the Leave campaign did indeed campaign on a false prospectus then absolutely the country should have a chance to annul or revisit the decision. Just as Farage insisted should be the case in the event of a narrow Remain win.

I'm not convinced any of the above will play out, BTW. But that is the consequence of Cameron's decision to leave Article 50 to his successor and seems to me quite sensible.

I agree with Martin - above - while listening to the autocratic and patrician to his fingertips Jonathan Powell (Moral Maze Radio 4) more or less state that there should be another referendum. He'll need to change the electorate - I am sure he has a cunning plan to do so.

'If Leave supporters could have foreseen the result of their votes,' writes John Cassidy, not even one week later. Apparently he's clairvoyant--too scrupulous to use his talent getting rich, but not above calling half the populace fools. That should be easy, of course, since New Yorkers ordinarily regard 80 or 90 percent of their fellow Americans as fools.